Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Litigation Crenshaw topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gardena Council authorizes lawsuit against Los Angeles County over Crenshaw Boulevard approvals
Summary
The Gardena City Council voted unanimously Oct. 22 to authorize litigation against Los Angeles County and other parties over approvals for housing projects at 15101 and 15335 Crenshaw Boulevard, the city attorney reported.
Get email alerts on the Litigation Crenshaw topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Gardena City Council voted unanimously on Oct. 22 to authorize the city to initiate litigation against the County of Los Angeles and other necessary parties over the county’s approval of a housing project at 15101 Crenshaw Boulevard and a proposed project at 15335 Crenshaw Boulevard. The decision was reported out of closed session by the city attorney.
"The Gardena City Council authorized the initiation of litigation against the County of Los Angeles and all necessary parties regarding the county's approval of a housing project at 15101 Crenshaw Boulevard, as well as a proposed project at 15335 Crenshaw Boulevard," the city attorney told the council after the closed session, and recorded that the vote was unanimous, 5-0-0.
Mayor Serta and councilmembers did not elaborate on legal strategy in open session. The action was presented as the formal outcome of the closed-session conference with legal counsel on anticipated litigation. No additional documents, motion text, or a timeline for filing were provided in the public report.
The council’s public report identified the two Crenshaw Boulevard properties by address and stated the city had voted to initiate litigation; it did not provide details about the legal claims, the county’s approvals, or potential remedies sought. City staff indicated only that the matter had been discussed in closed session under the agenda provision for consultation with legal counsel on anticipated litigation.
Next steps: the council’s announcement concluded the closed-session report without public comment on strategy; any filings, briefs or court dates would be matters for subsequent public disclosure when permitted by law.
Evidence for this action was summarized in the city attorney’s closed-session report to the council and recorded on the council’s Oct. 22 meeting transcript.

